germany Archive

Remember Ida Siekmann and 22 August 1961

Remember Ida Siekmann and 22 August 1961

Reading Ida Siekmann’s story at the Chronik der Mauer (Chronicle of the Berlin Wall) website will likely make you shake your head a few times and wonder how this all could have happened.  The German version of the story is quite detailed, whereas the English version is only a few lines.  So I’ll give here a summary of some of the content that’s available in German but not in English.

Ms. Siekmann’s death is recognized as having been the first attributed directly to the building of the Wall.  She was born in 1902 in West Prussia and it’s not known when she first moved to Berlin.    At the time the Wall was built she lived at Bernauer Straße 48 in Central Berlin, specifically the district Berlin-Mitte, which, during the 4-power occupation of Berlin, was in the Soviet zone.  However, the street in front of the building belonged in the district of Berlin-Wedding, which was part of the French zone.  Prior to the Wall, this unfortunate circumstance caused no great difficulty; there was neighborly contact between both sides of the street.  In fact, Ms. Siekmann visited her sister, a few blocks to the west, regularly and without difficulty.

Because of the arrangement of the building, it could only be entered from Wedding, but once you were within it, you were in Berlin-Mitte.  In the first few days of the Wall’s construction, many people living along that side of Bernauer Straße were still able to escape and go over to the west via their front doors.  Beginning on the 18th of August, however, the communist authorities barricaded the front doors and created new entrances from the sides of the buildings not facing west.  Authorities tightly controlled entrance to these buildings.

With their front doors barricaded, residents inside the buildings began jumping out of windows on the western side.  You can see footage here:

Authorities barricaded the front door of Ms. Siekmann’s building on 21 August 1961. Early the next morning, 22 August 1961, she threw many of her belongings out of the window of her third-floor flat. Probably because of her fear of being seen and stopped, she jumped out of the window herself too quickly and before West Berlin firemen were prepared to catch her. She died from her injuries on the way to the hospital, one day before her 59th birthday.

Her death caused a great deal of consternation in West Berlin. The press described her fate as a “deadly jump to freedom.” A memorial was soon erected in her honor. U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy later visited this memorial with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.

I have a special page dedicated to links concerning the Berlin Wall.

Photo credit: I found this photo at Wikimedia Commons. The copyright holder is listed as “Mutter Erde”, which is most certainly not a real name (it’s the German for “Mother Earth.”) The copyright holder has given full permission for the image to be used and altered.

Resource: Digitized versions of NS Frauen-Warte

Resource: Digitized versions of NS Frauen-Warte

I was looking at a post at the German Propaganda Archive blog showing an example of the National Socialist “Frauen-Warte“, an official, bi-weekly women’s illustrated published by the party.  A search on the main site of the German Propaganda Archive led me to their full page on Frauen-Warte, which in turn mentions the digitized collection of the magazine which is available via the web at a site maintained by the University of Heidelberg.  So here we have yet another great resource, free and available to all of us netizens.

The purpose of the magazine was, of course, to put forward the National Socialist vision of women’s role in their society.  Stereotypically, this included a lot of what you would expect: care for the children, support the men, manage the house.  The higher purpose was service to the State; therefore, when the times called for it, the magazine also celebrated service outside of the home, or at least so it seems by looking at the first issue of 1941 as an example.  1941 was a war year, so to find the National Socialists emphasizing woman’s role outside of the home is not surprising, given that their men were busy being slaughtered on the Eastern Front.  As such, we’re told in the article “Die faschistische Frau im Dienste der Nation” how women in fascist Italy are working as trolley conductors, farmers, machine workers, etc., while their men fight.    The article’s German author assures her readers that their Italian counterparts took on these new roles with the greatest of enthusiasm.  (Die Frauen sind dem Aufruf auf die hochherzigste Art gefolgt.)

Propaganda though it all may be, the covert art for each issue is worth having a look at.  Some of it is really striking.

The forgotten ones: Chancellors of the Weimar Republic

The forgotten ones: Chancellors of the Weimar Republic

Both English and German Wikipedia articles agree on the list of German chancellors during the Weimar Republic (although, if you look closely enough, they don’t necessarily agree on exact dates.)  As I reviewed the list, I found myself surprised by the fact that I really only recognized the names of six of them.  Here is the full list; the names that “rang a bell” for me are in bold.

  • Philipp Scheidemann
  • Gustav Bauer
  • Hermann Müller
  • Konstantin Fehrenbach
  • Joseph Wirth
  • Wilhelm Cuno
  • Gustav Stresemann
  • Wilhelm Marx
  • Hans Luther
  • Heinrich Brüning
  • Franz von Papen
  • Kurt von Schleicher
  • Adolf Hitler

And of those six that I recognized, only three of them came to mind as Weimar era chancellors.  Von Papen came to mind because of his role in “negotiating” with Austria leading up to the Anschluss; frankly, I’d forgotten that he was chancellor.  Von Schleicher came to mind because I recalled that he was murdered during the so-called “Night of the Long Knives“.  Hitler came to mind because … well, because he’s Hitler!  I simply hadn’t thought of him as a “Weimar chancellor”, but technically he was (though you might notice that the English page linked-to above does not list him — it seems to me that it should for the period from his election in January 1933 until he unified the offices of Chancellor and President into “Führer” in August 1934.)

So what of the other three whom I actually recalled as being Weimar chancellors: Scheidemann, Stresemann and Brüning?  Scheidemann no doubt came to mind because he was the one who proclaimed the German Republic:

Das deutsche Volk hat auf der ganzen Linie gesiegt. Das alte Morsche ist zusammengebrochen … Die Hohenzollern haben abgedankt! Es lebe die deutsche Republik!

(The German Volk has been completely victorious. The old rot has collapsed. … The Hohenzollerns have abdicated! Long live the German Republic!) [my translation]

I recalled Stresemann not primarily because of something he did during his chancellorship, but rather for his part as the vigorous negotiator for Germany in the talks that became the Dawes Plan.

As for Brüning, he came to mind simply as the last “serious” Weimar chancellor before everything, shall we say, went to hell.

And what of the ones whose names I did not even recognize?  The one that strikes me as most depressing (for having not been remember by me, someone who pretends to know a thing or two about German history!) is Wilhelm Marx.  The man served two terms for a total of more than 1100 days in office, fairly extraordinary for that time.  How can I not have remembered him?  As I review his English Wikipedia page, I see that it could be because Stresemann was still on the scene as his foreign minister during both of those terms.  Stresemann was a very important international figure, perhaps so much so that his legacy outstrips that of his superior during those 1100+ days.  Either that, or I was simply not paying attention in class!

Photo credits: The lead image for this article is a combination of three photos from the German Federal Archives which are made available under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Germany license. In the photo are: Gustav Stresemann, Philipp Scheidemann and Gustav Bauer.

Berlin Wall link updates

I added ten or so links to my Berlin Wall links page over the weekend. Two of my new favorites are, unfortunately, only very useful for people who can read and understand German. The first is Hinrich Olsen’s private page, Friedliche Revolution und Mauerfall, which also has several photos so could be interesting even if you do not read German, and German broadcaster ZDF’s Mediathek, whereat you can type in a search for "DDR" and find lots of useful and interesting television clips. I particularly liked ZDF’s "Countdown Mauerfall" series, which shows clips from ZDF news on the same day in 1989 (e.g., today they will show their 17 August 1989 broadcast.)

For those who cannot speak/read German, one of the more interesting sites I linked to this weekend is Moments in Time: 1989/1990, from the federal office of civic education. It contains lots of material in English, and many of its photos are licensed under Creative Commons, meaning you can re-use them for non-commercial purposes.

Berlin Wall construction began 48 years ago today

Berlin Wall construction began 48 years ago today

After tens of thousands had fled East Berlin for West Berlin in recent months, the East Germans began to erect a physical barrier in the early morning of 13 August 1961.  Thus began the Berlin Wall’s 28 year existence.  As Germans and others celebrate — this year, 2009 — the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Wall, more attention will naturally be given as well to this anniversary of its construction.

I enjoy looking at archives to read through immediate reactions to such big historical events.  I’ve looked today the U.S. State Department archives, specifically “Foreign Relations, 1961-1963, Volume XIV, Berlin Crisis, 1961-1962“.

An early telegram to Washington from the leader of the U.S. Mission in Berlin, Allen Lightner, speculated:

Evidently as a result of increased refugee flow with attendant economic loss to GDR and prestige to Socialist camp, East decided at recent Moscow conference of Warsaw Pact countries to proceed with fait accompli which would drastically disrupt freedom of movement within Berlin and erect frontier with respect entry into West Berlin of Sov Zone and East Berlin residents. In this way East has now taken some of the steps which it had been anticipated would follow from separate peace treaty with GDR.

As one would expect for such a momentous and dangerous event, the archives show a mix of reactions among U.S. diplomats.  On 16 August, after three days of relative inactivity on the part of the west, Lightner’s telegrams show obvious frustration:

In essence these people feel that we are facing a crisis of confidence which endangers quite seriously our position. This is based on the absence of any sharp and definite followup action since the Secretary’s statement. However this feeling of letdown is the greater because the President’s speech had had such a large readership and television following and had evoked such widespread public acceptance as a promise of firmness. I have not been impressed by German complaints of the lack of display of US military presence since sector borders were closed. I realize also that the longstanding belief that US support is the main and only German protection makes them impatient of our desire to act in concert with NATO Allies. Taking into account these prejudices and discounting numerous emotional arguments which have been made to me I am nevertheless convinced that what is described as the surrender of East Berlin to Ulbricht with all that this immediately implies has been a shock so severe that it can gravely affect our future relations, first, with the city of Berlin and its leaders, and second with the Federal Republic once the extent of the disillusionment here is recognized in Bonn.

[…]

Comment: I anticipate Berliners will label our Aug 15 letter of protest belated and tepid. No one here asking large violent action, merely some action, some proof this is not “another sample of `Hitler’s take over of Rhineland'”. I think the timetable for this crisis has been stepped up very considerably and there is real danger that Berliners will conclude they should take themselves, their bank accounts and movable assets to some other place. What is in danger or being destroyed here is that perishable commodity called hope. [my emphasis]

Berlin Mayor and future German Chancellor Willy Brandt wrote to President Kennedy personally on 16 August to express his doubts about western reactions to the crisis:

This development has not changed will to resist of West Berlin population, but has tended to arouse doubts as to determination of three powers and their ability to react. In this connection the decisive factor is that the West has always specifically invoked the existing Four-Power status.

[…]

[I] recollect not without bitterness declarations rejecting negotiations with USSR on basis one should not negotiate under pressure. We now have state of accomplished extortion, and already I hear it will not be possible turn down negotiations. In such situation, when possibility of initiative for action is already so small, it is all the more important at least to demonstrate political initiative.

Among those located in Washington, you can see as early as 14 August, the day after construction began, the beginnings of the treatment of the event as a fait accompli as shown in McGeorge Bundy’s summary of his discussions with others:

The Department’s proposal for a riposte is likely to be the ending of the travel permits which have been issued by the three powers in West Berlin to East Germans who want to visit allied or neutral countries. This was used a year ago in response to East German harassment of civilian traffic, and it worked well. No one thinks it will cause a reversal of policy this time, in the light of the much more serious causes of this much larger action. But it is argued that it will give some pain, since it will cut off East German access to allied countries and to those neutral nations which play along.

I find this argument unconvincing. I doubt if we should take little actions in reprisal against this big one, especially when the punishment is unrelated to the crime. The only good argument for this action is that it has been discussed among the 4 Powers before as a possible retort to border-closing, and there may be some Allied worry about our “reliability” if we don’t support it now.

Incidentally, I find agreement in both Joe Alsop and George Kennan to these three conclusions: (1) this is something they have always had the power to do; (2) it is something they were bound to do sooner or later, unless they could control the exits from West Berlin to the West; (3) since it was bound to happen, it is as well to have it happen early, as their doing and their responsibility.

It reminds me of the opening pages of Rainer Eppelmann’s memoir, Fremd im eigenen Haus (Amazon US, UK, DE). Eppelmann’s father had papers showing him as being registered in West Berlin, whereas the family home was in the east. The parents agreed that the father should remain in the west (where work was more plenty):

Both [parents] were absolutely convinced that the Wall, erected brick-by-brick in front of the eyes of the world, would not remain for long. The West would never allow it! [My translation and emphasis]

Welt Online shows child victims of the Berlin Wall

Welt Online shows child victims of the Berlin Wall

November 2009 will mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Many German publications and websites are therefore dedicating a great deal of time and space to commemorating the event.

The online presence of the German newspaper Die Welt posted on Monday a photo essay of five children who died because of the presence of the “Wall” (the term is used broadly to describe the entire border between East and West Berlin, including the Spree River, which, as you will see, plays a significant role here.) I include here a brief English summary of each entry:

  1. Cengaver Katranci, an 8 year-old Turkish immigrant in West Berlin, fell into the water from the banks of the Spree River in October 1972. A fisherman wanted to help him but decided against it, knowing that the whole of the river at this point was found within GDR borders. West Berlin police tried to summon boats from the east to save him, but failed. It took 90 minutes for a boat from the east to finally begin the search. His body was found two hours after he fell in.
  2. Siegfried Kroboth, a five year-old, also fell into the Spree from the west in May 1973. West Berlin police saw him in the water but could do nothing. Occupants of an East Berlin border post did nothing. Only hours later did divers from the east fish out his body.
  3. Cetin Mer fell into the Spree on 11 May 1975, his fifth birthday. His body was retrieved two hours later. After this event, the east and west finally agreed on a warning system by which border police could raise alarm and call on rescuers.
  4. Giuseppe Savoca, the 6 year-old son of Italian immigrants, fell into the Spree on 15 June 1974. Border guards on the eastern side saw this and reported it. Shortly thereafter, a boat belonging to the eastern border troops came by but simply kept going. Only after receiving orders did the boat crew fish out the young boy’s body.
  5. The East German parents of the 15 month-old Holger H. wanted their son to grow up in freedom.  In 1973 they attempted to escape by hiding in boxes in a lorry of a friend from West Berlin.  During the wait at the border post, Holger began to cry.  His mother covered the baby’s mouth, but because Holger had a middle-ear infection his nasal membranes were swollen and he was therefore unable to breath.  He suffocated in his mother’s arms.

The photo accompanying this blog post shows part of the Spree river going through Berlin. Credit: flickr user Murdoch. http://www.flickr.com/photos/murdoch/ / CC BY 2.0.

German historians and tensions in contemporary history

German historians and tensions in contemporary history

I’ve been looking around for old journal articles that are available online and came across one by Prof. Dr. Mary Fulbrook.  Her name stood out to me, since I enjoyed her Anatomy of a Dicatorship: Inside the GDR 1949-1989 (Amazon US, UK, CA, DE [english]), which will very likely be our Book of the Week soon.  This particular journal article, “Approaches to German contemporary history since 1945: Politics and paradigm“, is available at the website of the journal Zeithistorische Forschungen.  I found it interesting because it describes a few of the controversies among post-war German historians.  Fulbrook acknowledges that all histories come “with a baggage of political overtones”, but in the case of Germany the connection between politics and history is more obvious than in other countries:

[I]n reflecting on the development of contemporary history in Germany since 1945, it is striking just how closely particular historical approaches are linked to positions on the political spectrum. [p. 1]

Prior to 1989 there was obviously greater diversity among West German historians than among their eastern counterparts, since history within East Germany could not deviate from the party line.  Therefore professional historians within West Germany were more likely to stir things up amongst themselves. “Thus contemporary history in West Germany before 1989 was characterised by periodic violent controversies.” [p. 4]

Some of the controversies which she points out include:

  • “Intentionalist” versus “Structuralist” approaches to the Holocaust. [p. 5]
  • Whether the “history of everyday life” was “merely a left-wing form of romanticism; even perhaps, unintentionally, some form of apologia for Nazi crimes.” [p. 5]
  • “Whether one should seek to treat the history of the Third Reich as just another short period of German history, a mere dozen years to be dealt with in the same way as any other – or whether this would be beyond the bounds of the morally permissible.” [p. 5]

I also found interesting her point concerning a (perhaps) surprising similarity in the West German and East German historical narratives concerning the Third Reich:

Equally, on both sides of the Wall a version of ‘false consciousness’ could be found: in the western case, the emphasis on Hitler’s personal charm suggested that many Germans were ‘duped’ and fell under his spell; in the East German case, the Marxist notions of ideology and false consciousness (‘the ruling ideas of the age are the ideas of the ruling class’) could be explicitly appealed to in order to explain (away) the role of the complicit masses. Thus we see extraordinarily similar political functions with respect to the exoneration of ‘ordinary people’ in historical interpretations which in other respects are politically totally opposed to each other. [p. 7]

(The photo collage accompanying the article shows a few of the historians mentioned by Fulbrook in the article. From left to right: Hartmut Kaelble, Alf Lüdtke, Stefan Wolle, Hartmut Zwahr.)

Mein Kampf: To print or not to print?

Mein Kampf: To print or not to print?

David Wroe, in Berlin for the Daily Telegraph, reports that the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Council of Jews in Germany) supports historians and others who wish for Mein Kampf to be made available for publication within Germany.  Read the whole article for details, but the gist is this: the copyright, owned by the State of Bavaria (which has always refused publication), runs out in 2015.  Were Bavaria to fail in its legal bid to renew the coyright, the book would become available for anybody to publish.  “Anybody” here most especially means right-wing organizations, obscure neo-nazi publishers, etc.  They are those most likely to profit as they would no doubt publish special, celebratory editions.  The Zentralrat, in addition to some historians, argues that Bavaria — while it still has control — should allow the publication of scholarly editions of the infamous book.  Such editions might include, for example, footnotes which rebut some of the original author’s claims.

What do you think?  Should publication of the full german-language text of Mein Kampf be allowed in Germany?

(Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bixentro/ / CC BY 2.0.)

Die Welt revisits a once-tabu subject

Die Welt revisits a once-tabu subject

On Tuesday, 04 August 2009, the website of the German newspaper Die Welt re-published an article from 04 August 1989 [german] concerning right-wing youth within  communist East Germany.

As the article points out, the East German government tried its best to keep such stories under wraps, since “officially, the DDR had defeated fascism” (my translation).  The article highlights a report from the East German documentary film director and democracy activist Konrad Weiss.  Weiss’s report asserts that arrests due to right-wing activity had increased five-fold between 1983 and 1987.  The apparent goal of the neo-nazis was the return of a united Germany within the borders of 1938.  Weiss suggests that only true democratic reform could stop more and more youths from turning to right-wing ideology.

In fact, the Berlin Wall would fall just three months after Die Welt published the original article.  Now the problem of neo-nazi activity in today’s eastern German states is quite well known.  The wished-for democratic reform came, but unfortunately could not by itself to hold back the popularity of right-wing ideology among youths in that part of the united Germany.

(Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/romtomtom/ / CC BY-NC 2.0)

German Historical Institute Washington DC

German Historical Institute Washington DC

The website of the German Historical Institute in Washington, DC, has a nice colletion of primary sources, including scans of photos, maps and original documents.  The collection is organized by the following time periods:

  • From the Reformation to the
    Thirty Years War (1500-1648)
  • From Absolutism to
    Napoleon (1648-1815)
  • From Vormärz to Prussian Dominance (1815-1866)
  • Forging an Empire: Bismarckian Germany (1866-1890)
  • Wilhelmine Germany and the First World War (1890-1918)
  • Weimar Germany (1918/19-1933)
  • Nazi Germany (1933-1945)
  • Occupation and the Emergence of Two States (1945-1961)
  • Two Germanies (1961-1989)
  • One Germany in Europe (1989-2006)

One of the items I stumbled across was this quote from a letter written by the novelist Theodor Fontane to his wife, concerning the march to war with France in 1870.  I think it captures quite well the anxiety that could be caused by modernity and the beginnings of mechanization:

The entire situation appears to me like a colossal vision, a Wild Hunt rushing past me; you find yourself standing there in amazement, without quite knowing what to make of it all. It is a Völkerwanderung [great migration of peoples] regulated by railways, organized masses, but masses all the same, ones within which you whirl around like an atom, not standing apart, not dominating; instead, you are entirely at the mercy of this great movement and have no will of your own. It is like being in a theater when someone shouts “Fire!”, you are swept toward an exit that is perhaps no exit at all, mercilessly squeezed, pushed, throttled, the victim of dark drives and forces. Some people love it because it means “excitement” – I am too artistically inclined to be able to feel comfortable under these circumstances.

(Photo is a screen capture of the top navigation bar at the site mentioned below. Credit: German Historical Institute, Washington, D.C.)